No, we don't need celebs to give context to art coverage. It seems harmless but considering the sensational nature of most every other art damage event story it just seems supercilious.

Yes this President (for now) plans to defund the NEA and seemingly every other useful organ of the federal government. Not surprised, perhaps if the country survives all this we can remember how pathetic the Federal support of the NEA already is? Just a semi positive thought... let's remember the lack of things like the nuanced thinking fostered by the arts that lead us to this situation.

ArtFcity reviews the latest Whitney Biennial. Of course it can't possibly capture the grist of the moment, no major museum has the kind of guts that takes but unlike the surveys we've seen of Oregon art it is engaged that there is a certain dissonance. Jerry Saltz wrote about it too ofc. Overall, I see these shows as more of a measuring stick for the calibrating how museums serve their audiences rather than a real state of the art... big festivals seem to be more in tune... perhaps it is the museum industry itself where the curators have lost intellectual edge to the mediating imperatives of directors? The Whitney still has some teeth and that is important. It doesn't have to be perfect but all museums need to find the tensions of the age. I've been thinking of a show that can do what the museums just can't.